151–160 of 464 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that's just speculation until you clarify. Can you be more specific?
Think of anything that isn't a web server, file server, database server, or desktop.
IIRC it's also part of some soon to be shipping vehicle integrations, for in-car entertainment systems and mapping.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All the more reason to be judicious in what new technologies are introduced. One of the huge benefits of the Unix/Linux, CLI, and Free Software traditions is that they tend to be very strongly preserving of established knowledge . Changes are incremental, usually additive, a reliance on scripting means that interfaces are unlikely to change, and new tools are very frequently drop-in replacements for old. As specific…
I understand your strong opinion and since I am no sysadmin I have no technical problem with arguments. But I am not sure I totally agree with your characterization of slow pace of change by Apple or the wonderful state of Unix/Linux. Aqua was quite a break from the previous GUI and Apple changed the whole stack at one point from computer architecture to OS to graphic library. I don't know a more radical change than…
BUT IT WAS THE FIRST SUCH BREAK IN 15 YEARS OF THE GUI, AND IT'S BEEN THE ONLY MAJOR BREAK IN THE PAST 15 YEARS.
I'm also not saying that Aqua hasn't changed at all. It has, with the most notable addition that I'm aware of being virtual desktops (something NextSTEP had in the 1980s). But other than some minor cosmetic changes, and largely invisible-to-the-user under-the-hood updates, the visible UI has NOT changed appreciably.
Contrast that with the disruption that's prevailed in the Microsoft Windows and Linux spaces from 1999 to present. We've gone from the Win98 UI to the candy-cane XP styling, and Metro in Windows, and at least three generations each of KDE and GNOME on Linux, plus a few other desktops which have waxed and waned in popularity.
I've continued to use WindowMaker, and after 17 years, it is, hands down, the one GUI metaphor I've had the longest experience with of any. It's been exceptionally stable, with very few changes. Even minor ones are quite jarring to me, which is somewhat odd to reflect on.
X11 and/or replacements is a whole 'nother discussion, but I'll simply note that the network transparency of X has been hugely underappreciated by many who've sought to upend it (I don't know what the status of Wayland is in this regard).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am no expert on this but apparently when Gentoo developers tried integrating OpenRC they ran into too many bugs. http://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2013/09/25/gnome-and-loginds...
> ...apparently when Gentoo developers tried integrating OpenRC they ran into too many bugs. You are certainly no expert on this. I've been using Gentoo since 1.4... back in 2003, maybe 2004. I vaguely remember when Stable Gentoo was switched to OpenRC, which happened in mid 2011 . Unstable Gentoo (which I ran -and still run- on my laptop) switched to OpenRC much earlier [but that date I cannot remember]. What the fi…
"For one, in the last stages of GNOME 3.8.0 as release team we specifically approved some patches to allow Canonical to run logind without systemd. Secondly, the last official statement still stands, No hard compile time dep on systemd for “basic functionality”. This is a bit vague but think of session tracking as basic functionality."
It's now the position of the systemd developers that running logind without systemd was never supported, and that distros like Ubuntu should never have tried to do it. I believe they've now broken the ability to do so. It's one of the major reasons Ubuntu had to switch to systemd.
(Oh, and for some context, http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/logind/ is the logind DBUS API. Good luck reimplementing that!)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've had huge productivity gains with unit files for systemd over trying to write spaghetti shell code for old sysv. The syntax and features are well documented and writing them is extremely simple. I also don't believe any sysv implementation had crash recovery or socket activation of daemons, both of which are huge feature wins.
I also don't believe any sysv implementation had crash recovery or socket activation of daemons, both of which are huge feature wins. That's because there were other components handling those tasks, like inetd and /etc/inittab. I do like having Upstart handle respawning for me, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it was tested enough to ship in redhat enterprise linux 7.
RH still offers support for RHEL6, and will do so for years to come. It will be interesting to see how quickly 7 gets adopted outside of cloud instances.
They'll be supporting RHEL7 (with Systemd 208) in some form until 2027
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's a though: try remembering you don't speak for "sysadmins", you speak for yourself.
I think he speaks for sysadmins. If you are using cgroups at the moment you can write scripts for them. It's a mounted filesystem. The change forces you to use systemd for cgroups as only systemd is able to write to cgroups. The argument is: If you don't like systemd implement an alternative that does this for you. Some for kdbus and udev, netlink... The article is right - it's not Linux as we know it anymore for bet…
Are there any reliable VPS providers that offer FreeBSD?
There are quite a few. Some decent ones I have heard good things about: * rootbsd.net * arp networks * vultr There are quite a few cheap-ish dedicated server vendors out there that can either be ordered with FreeBSD or provide some means to install it yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's essentially redoing the traditional Linux approach It seems like that's part of their mission statement, given comments like this: "Some day, we will have turned the old crap into a real operating system. :) " -- Kay Sievers ( https://plus.google.com/+TomGundersen/posts/eztZWbwmxM8 )
Yeah, and they seem to be using Windows as their model of what a "real operating system" looks like.
In fact, OS X's launchd was a direct inspiration for systemd because of how nicely it works there. I've wanted launchd on servers for so many years.
Perhaps this is a controversial idea, but is this not just someone finally taking the tried and true Open Source "advice" to heart? That is, every time I've reported something is broken, wonky, doesn't work reliably, et cetera, I've been told, "Submit a patch.", "Write some code.", or worse, "Implement it yourself." Someone finally got fed up with the haphazard state of affairs in Linux-land. Fed up with the fragment…
I had no opinion on systemd until yesterday. In fact I had a glace or two at the code and it's pretty clean and I liked the rough objectives laid out. I installed CentOS 7 on a machine last night that we're replacing CentOS 6 on and was poked in the face with timedatectl and dbus problems for an entire hour, some of which were intermittent. Debugging these issues is a horrific pain. I lost 4 hours on it. I've never l…
In some sense systemd is more stable in that it's fixing some longstanding bugs with sysvinit, but of course it will have some bugs of it own. If you don't want to deal with that, you could skip a release.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if journald goes belly up, no logs for syslog...
And if syslog goes belly up no logs. What's your point?